JWS signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols
draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-14

Francesca is holding a DISCUSS since the media types registry request was made only after the document entered IESG review. Will wait for Francesca to clear her DISCUSS after a week, once it has been reviewed.

[Ballot comment]
I support Francesca's DISCUSS.  Moreover, I have the following observations about the media type registration:

(a) For "Required parameters" and "Optional parameters", you very likely want "N/A", not "None".  See RFC 6838, Section 5.6.

(b) I don't think the text you have for "Interoperability considerations" is exactly what the template wants.  See the discussion in RFC 6838, Section 6.2.

I don't understand the SHOULDs in Section 3.2.  Why aren't they MUSTs?  Is there ever a legitimate reason not to do what it says?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - even though I'm not an Anima / JWT person I still found the document easy to read.

Also, much thanks to Yingzhen Qu and Eliot Lear for the OpsDir and IOTDir reviews.

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-14
CC @OR13

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-14.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/


## Comments

Thanks to Jim Fenton for the ART ART review, and to the authors for addressing his previous comments.
I would like to see his remaining nits on -14 addressed as well.

### typ ending in +json

```
217   *  The typ parameter is optional and used when more than one kind of
218       object could be present in an application data structure as
219       described in Section 4.1.9 of [RFC7515].  If present, the typ
220       parameter MUST contain the value voucher-jws+json.
```

AFAIK, this is the first case of a proposed standard where typ is used to indicate a JWS JSON type, usually I see typ values ending in +jwt and only in compact serialization.

Thanks for asking for a review here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/JIZhf_uffyMyQZAAUsy0V9mQIrA/

### What happens when the trust anchor is in the x5c?

```
234   To validate voucher signatures, all certificates of the certificate
235   chain are required up to the trust anchor.  Note, to establish trust
236   the trust anchor SHOULD be provided out-of-band up front.
```

Why not state the trust anchor MUST NOT be present in x5c?

What happens when this SHOULD is ignored.

### privacy considerations of jws headers

```
268   The use of a JWS header brings no new privacy considerations.
```

I'm not sure I agree with this framing.

The header could contain additional parameters beyond alg, typ and x5c.

The decoded x5c might include additional attributes that impact privacy.

## Nits

### Decoded JWS Protected Header

```
238   The following figure gives an example of a JWS Protected Header:
```

The protected header that is secured is base64url encoded, so when displaying JSON, you are displaying a decoded + pretty printed protected header.
It is also potentially worth noting that the JSON you are showing as lots of new lines and spaces, which I would not expect in a minimal protected header.

[Ballot comment]

The Abstract and the first paragraph of the Introduction both 'bury the lead' by discussing other drafts first.  I would rearrange
these to list the current draft first, and then the other work drafts.  I also agree w/ Eric's comment about the (kind of weird)
Yang terminology.  Especially since this draft has no Yang.

Section 8.2:  Parboiled?  Really?  Intermediate step would probably be clearer to many (especially if the readers aren't native English speakers).

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work on this document.

I have looked for media type reviews in the media-types mailing list, and could not find the registration request posted. As specified by RFC6838, it is strongly encouraged to post the media type registration to the media-types mailing list for review (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/1hOBaaTVCfl-M3uHmu2a7Q5Ogzk/ for an example of a registration review request). If I missed it, my apologies. If not, please post to the media-types mailing list, and I will remove the discuss with no objections raised after a week or so. Please make sure to copy-paste the full text from section 6.1.1 (not just a pointer to it) in your mail to media-types.

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-13

# Many thanks for this document

# line numbers are derived with the idnits tool https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-13.txt

# I do not have significant crypto knowledge, hence my review is rather high level from generalist and readability perspective. I found the draft well written.

#DETAILED COMMENTS
#=================

123   Voucher:  A short form for voucher artifact and refers to the signed
124       statement from Manufacturer Authorized Signing Authority (MASA)
125       service that indicates to a Pledge the cryptographic identity of
126       the domain it should trust, per [I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis].

GV> I saw the term 'artifact' few times used before this section. Is this a
term that is well known in the context of anima/security?
Maybe suggest a definition or description what is intended. I did a search on the
web and found the following short summary:

"In the context of JWS, an artifact typically refers to the payload or
data that is being signed and transmitted. This artifact is encoded
as part of the JWS structure and, along with the signature, ensures
the integrity and authenticity of the data."

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, may I also add that the text is easy to read and understand?

Thanks also to Matthias Kovatsch for the exhaustive shepherd's write-up (noting that the WGLC did not generate any comment...).

Thanks also to Eliot Lear, the IoT directorate reviewer, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-12-iotdir-lc-lear-2024-09-16/

One minor quick comment though: is there any reason why the abstract uses YANG-defined and the introduction YANG-based (both terms are weird though and bring little value especially in the abstract) ?

Putting the document in the substate of "Revised I-D Needed" to address *DIR reviews received during LC.

- The ARTART review from Jim Fenton points to multiple questions related to the draft that are beyond the question of why it is not part of rfc3866bis. Would be nice to address them.

- Eliot's IOTDIR review and the ask for an example. I agree with him on it.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a single new media type will be registered as follows:

Name: voucher-jws+json
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher@ietf.org, ietf@kovatsch.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JWS signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Autonomic Networking Integrated
Model and Approach WG (anima) to consider the following document: - 'JWS
signed Voucher Artifacts for Bootstrapping Protocols'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-10-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis defines a digital artifact called voucher
  as a YANG-defined JSON document that is signed using a Cryptographic
  Message Syntax (CMS) structure.  This document introduces a variant
  of the voucher artifact in which CMS is replaced by the JSON Object
  Signing and Encryption (JOSE) mechanism described in RFC7515 to
  support deployments in which JOSE is preferred over CMS.

  In addition to explaining how the format is created, the
  "application/voucher-jws+json" media type is registered and examples
  are provided.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Waiting for draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis to also reach Publication Requested so that they can go IETF LC and IESG telechat together, or at least, that other document first.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is good consensus within the design team, however, no feedback came back
when asking the WG mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ZCEk4-DWnx-ESfUm-GliImDrGgs/

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy observed nor known.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No discontent was indicated.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are 2 implementations of JWS Voucher that are part of the BRSKI and
BRSKI-PRM solutions of Siemens:
* Java for MASA, Registrar, and (unconstrained) Pledge
* C for Pledge
The implementations were developed by different persons and cross-tested for
correctness and interoperability.
The code is not open source; it is company inner source.
Furthermore, there is a RUST implementation of JWS Voucher currently
underdevelopment by another group, however, also closed source.
As the implementations are not (yet) open source, there is no "Implementation
Status" section in the document itself.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

It uses RFC7515 (JWS) of the JOSE WG in a straight-forward manner, so that the
shepherd sees no need for a review.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Media type is the only formal review criteria and the authors confirmed to
request a review from mediaman (document in open issue #7).

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module is contained.
(It uses the YANG module defined in I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis without any
additions.)

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document uses pseudo-JSON to illustrate the definitions, which were reviewed
and improved to align with the definitions given in RFC7515 (JWS).
Consulting a number of mailing lists yielded no better proposal and the shepherd
thinks the current solution is very clear for implementers.

The JWS examples in the appendix were checked with Base64 and DER tools and are
correctly parsable.
An implementation note was added, as some examples use the optional escaping of
slashes for the JSON strings, which however, is RFC8259-compliant.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is needed to close a gap in the overall BRSKI framework for
environments that make use of the wide-spread JWS format for signed JSON data.

The document is clear and concise, and well aligned with the underlying JWS RFC.
I believe the document is ready.

Note, there are TODO markers in the document intended for the RFC Editor:
- 2 for special references to I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis that
  need the effective plain RFC number (Updates header, abstract)
- 2 for confirming the IANA registration of "voucher-jws+json"
  or updating to the effective media type
- 1 for "THIS RFC" in IANA Considerations section

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

(Instructions unclear.)
The shepherds expertise can and did cover the topics listed for:
- ART
The topics from the following areas seem not applicable:
- INT
- OPS
- RTG
- SEC (in the sense that the document has a very specific, small scope)
- TSV

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The requested status is "Standard Track", which is correctly documented in the
document header and the Datatracker attribute is "Proposed Standard".
This is appropriate as the document defines an additional format for the BRSKI
Voucher Artifact (RFC8366), which must be interoperable.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors recently confirmed on the authors' mailing list they are not aware of
any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
There are 2 authors only.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09.txt

idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09.txt:
-(601): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding

This is indeed UTF-8 encoding, 'ü' in Kühlewind as used in existing RFCs.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.

See above (Kühlewind).

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8366, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8366
    though, so this could be OK.

This is an RFC Editor TODO, as the special header reference must point to the
effective RFC number for I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis (number only).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 312, but not defined

This is an RFC Editor TODO (in IANA registration).

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, all references were checked with [16] in mind.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, however, they are planned as cluster together
with other 8366bis updates/extensions such as I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No changes to existing RFCs.
I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis should be published with "Updated by" in the
"See Also" category, if I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag will be ready for this.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations contain a Media-Type Registry registration for
"application/voucher-jws+json", which identifies the representation format
defined in the document.
No other registration needs are apparent in the body of the document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is good consensus within the design team, however, no feedback came back
when asking the WG mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ZCEk4-DWnx-ESfUm-GliImDrGgs/

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy observed nor known.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No discontent was indicated.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are 2 implementations of JWS Voucher that are part of the BRSKI and
BRSKI-PRM solutions of Siemens:
* Java for MASA, Registrar, and (unconstrained) Pledge
* C for Pledge
The implementations were developed by different persons and cross-tested for
correctness and interoperability.
The code is not open source; it is company inner source.
Furthermore, there is a RUST implementation of JWS Voucher currently
underdevelopment by another group, however, also closed source.
As the implementations are not (yet) open source, there is no "Implementation
Status" section in the document itself.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

It uses RFC7515 (JWS) of the JOSE WG in a straight-forward manner, so that the
shepherd sees no need for a review.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Media type is the only formal review criteria and the authors confirmed to
request a review from mediaman (document in open issue #7).

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No YANG module is contained.
(It uses the YANG module defined in I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis without any
additions.)

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document uses pseudo-JSON to illustrate the definitions, which were reviewed
and improved to align with the definitions given in RFC7515 (JWS).
Consulting a number of mailing lists yielded no better proposal and the shepherd
thinks the current solution is very clear for implementers.

The JWS examples in the appendix were checked with Base64 and DER tools and are
correctly parsable.
An implementation note was added, as some examples use the optional escaping of
slashes for the JSON strings, which however, is RFC8259-compliant.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is needed to close a gap in the overall BRSKI framework for
environments that make use of the wide-spread JWS format for signed JSON data.

The document is clear and concise, and well aligned with the underlying JWS RFC.
I believe the document is ready.

Note, there are TODO markers in the document intended for the RFC Editor:
- 2 for special references to I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis that
  need the effective plain RFC number (Updates header, abstract)
- 2 for confirming the IANA registration of "voucher-jws+json"
  or updating to the effective media type
- 1 for "THIS RFC" in IANA Considerations section

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

(Instructions unclear.)
The shepherds expertise can and did cover the topics listed for:
- ART
The topics from the following areas seem not applicable:
- INT
- OPS
- RTG
- SEC (in the sense that the document has a very specific, small scope)
- TSV

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The requested status is "Standard Track", which is correctly documented in the
document header and the Datatracker attribute is "Proposed Standard".
This is appropriate as the document defines an additional format for the BRSKI
Voucher Artifact (RFC8366), which must be interoperable.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors recently confirmed on the authors' mailing list they are not aware of
any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
There are 2 authors only.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09.txt

idnits 2.17.1

draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09.txt:
-(601): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding

This is indeed UTF-8 encoding, 'ü' in Kühlewind as used in existing RFCs.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.

See above (Kühlewind).

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8366, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8366
    though, so this could be OK.

This is an RFC Editor TODO, as the special header reference must point to the
effective RFC number for I-D.draft-ietf-anima-RFC8366bis (number only).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == Missing Reference: 'THIS RFC' is mentioned on line 312, but not defined

This is an RFC Editor TODO (in IANA registration).

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, all references were checked with [16] in mind.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, however, they are planned as cluster together
with other 8366bis updates/extensions such as I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No changes to existing RFCs.
I-D.draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis should be published with "Updated by" in the
"See Also" category, if I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag will be ready for this.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations contain a Media-Type Registry registration for
"application/voucher-jws+json", which identifies the representation format
defined in the document.
No other registration needs are apparent in the body of the document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/